By  Anonymous, at 8/29/06, 11:47 AM

I'm a straight christian guy and am all for this law being passed, but I do find irony in your description of someone who disagrees with you.

"Basically if you want to receive state funding you can't be bigoted, ass-backwards and pleasured by your ignorance and hate any longer."

I'm glad this law got passed, but it sound to me like you're also pleasered by your own ignorance and hate.
-Justin    

By  Anonymous, at 8/29/06, 12:05 PM

I ran accross your blog looking for info on SB 1441... I have a coupe questions/comments.

1. My wife went to Azusa Pacific University... one of the best nursing schools in Southern California... but Christian. New students hoping to go to APU will not be able to recieve cal-grants as a result of this bill... ? Who's getting punished the University... or the Students?

2. Is it wrong to disagree with you? If I say I think Christ is my savior and I believe what is written in the bible, does that make me a bigot? Can you redefine bigot as anyone who believes in the Bible? I think it would be equally unfair to say that anyone who is a Hindu is a bigot, any Muslim is a bigot. The term "bigot" does not mean "a person who disagrees with you" the definition of bigot is:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
What your saying is that my wife is "bigoted" "ass-backward" and "pleasured by her own ignorance". When in reality your the one who is making derogatory statements about people who disagree with you... being very "intolerant" of people like my wife and I who have a "differing creed, belief, and opinion".    

By  Gavin S., at 8/29/06, 12:25 PM

I am not in any way classifying all Christians. I never said that. I myself am a Christian and believe in the Bible. Unfortunately, many extremists twist the Bible to hurt others. It is a shame--and not what the Bible teaches, nor what God would want.

Though to the countless schools that do discriminate based on sexual orientation--this is for them.

New students WILL be able to receive CAL grants, as long as their schools do not discriminate. It is not that hard of a concept to understand. Legalized discrimination is a concept beyond my thinking. It makes no sense.

It is plain and simple. If you want to receive state funding, you cannot discriminate. CA law already includes the standard classes (race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or disability), this now adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the roster.

As far as making derogatory statements about "those who disagree with me"... Yes, we are the oppressed people here. When I look at the Christian Newswire it is disgusting to see how they twist this bill. For example, when they say that Arnold is hurting families with this bill. Are you kidding me? I could give you 1001 reason how they themselves are "hurting families". I could actually give you a list of way more than 1001 reasons.

So a question back to you. Do you think that if a student wanted to attend APU, though was denied admission based on his or her perceived or real sexual orientation--then this, and should be completely legal? Not a chance if they want to receive public money (payed for in part by the GLBT population in CA).

Now if a school so chooses, they can not accept the state funding and legally discriminate as a private institution.    

By  Anonymous, at 8/30/06, 1:15 PM

Jenn, would you describe what you mean by "discrimination"? I ask because I don't think you mean it the way you are using it.

Every person, institution, government, etc., practices discrimination. Even you Jenn. We evaluate people, ideas, policy, art, etc. and discriminate between what is good and what is not.

In the example of the school, they discriminate on every level. You can't get into a school without certain grades or test scores, determined by the school. You can't attend that school if you have no way to pay for it. You will be expelled if you flunk out. You will be dismissed if you disobey any number of the school's policies. These are all ways the school "discriminates" between those that can attend their institution and those that don't. And I'll venture a guess that you and I would agree that having certain standards of academic performance or behavior is entirely appropriate.

Even in this thread, you are discriminating against the "bad" idea of being anti-homosexual, and the "good" idea of being tolerant to homosexuals.

So the issue is not about *if* those who accept public money will discriminate, but how. It seems to me that SB 1441 simply reverses the allowable discrimination from that of opposition to homosexuality, to that of opposition to anyone not accepting homosexuality.

Make no mistake, more people are being discriminated against now than before SB 1441 passed. It's funny how homosexual activists just expect everyone to be ok with this idea that certain groups that oppose homosexuality should not recieve *public* money. But when someone suggested that a pro-homosexual group not get public money, there would be outrage from this same group.    

By  Anonymous, at 8/30/06, 2:09 PM

By that logic schools that discriminate on the basis of race should also be entitled to public money; thats ridiculous.    

By  LeLo, at 8/30/06, 3:15 PM

First of all, congratulations, Justin, on being a straight christian guy.

Second, just another sinner, your cries of the sky is falling are the same blatherings that were out and about in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, etc., about racial equality. Congratulations to your wife for going to Azusa Pacific, but I'm quite thankful my taxes don't go to support a school that discriminates. Period. It's private. Get your own support.

Kudos to California and their Governor for the steps towards equality and fairness for all Californians. They say the west leads future policy and trends: let this one take off like wildfire.    

By  Anonymous, at 8/30/06, 3:22 PM

In response to the post from Anonymous that started "By that logic...": Note that I wasn't trying to draw any logical conclusions, just positing a question. I was responding to Jenn's premise, summarized by her statement "they can not accept the state funding and legally discriminate as a private institution." I'm suggesting that SB 1441 does not eliminate legal discrimination, it just flips the direction. So the question is, who determines what kind of discrimination is allowable in *private* institutions to be able to recieve public money?

But since you played the race card, let me respond. Since debating the fundamental difference between race (who you are) and who you sleep with (what you do) would probably be moot in this forum, I'll just say this. We legislate against behavior, even certain kinds sexual behavior (prostitution or child rape for example) all the time, and most reasonable people find that to be a legitimate function of a civil society. Society has to determine what kinds of behavior is detrimental to that society (such as murder, rape, or slavery) and legislate against it. But I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why we as a society should be expected to just roll over and accept homosexual behavior as normal, all of a sudden (as in the last 40 yrs), when it has been considered to be just as morally corrosive as other kinds of sexual behaviors for most of human history.

In other words, it seems to me that the burden of proof is on the homosexual contingent to convince society of why it's wrong. But they don't seem to think they should have to. They just want us to accept it as normal because they say it is. And if we don't they will find like minded politicians and judges and ram it down our throats.    

By  LeLo, at 8/30/06, 4:10 PM

Anyone who is going to draw comparisons between gays and prostitution, child rape, murder, rape, or slavery is not worth responding to.

And I particularly find it humorous the use of "ram it down our throats": perhaps you should stop fixating on your obsession here.    

By  Anonymous, at 8/30/06, 4:24 PM

Thanks LeLo. The level of debate in this blog is truly inspiring and a testament to your cause.

Yikes.

So you'll be pleased to know that you win, and I'm sure you all will bid me good riddance. I'm outta here.    

By  LeLo, at 8/30/06, 4:30 PM

In the words of Heidi Klum, "Auf Wiedersehen."    

By  Anonymous, at 8/30/06, 8:38 PM

I wonder why we do not get this level of achievement from Basic Rights Oregon.    

By  Gavin S., at 8/30/06, 8:56 PM

Two main reasons...

1.) Budget
2.) Many, many openly gay Legislators

Oregon is slowly getting better with #2. Especially this session with Tina Kotek. Equality California sent out a press release about their "Annual Dinner". They raised over $400k. That was just at the first of their many dinners around the state. CA also has way more people and way more gays--gays with $$. That always helps.    

By  Anonymous, at 8/31/06, 11:35 AM

I've been to EQ/CA Dinners and involved with them politically. I've been to BRO dinners and involved with them politically. EQ/CA acts like a civil rights organization (and very professional) BRO acts like a clique and attempts to control the civil rights movement here in Oregon rather than facilitate it (EQ/CA is more facilitating).

I don't think it's the funds and legislators really, personally. It's the will. We're a smaller state and we have a Democratic governor. There shouldn't be any reason that California is passing us up on the civil rights front, but they are.

I don't attend BRO functions any longer, I've been burned too many times. Hopefully with new leadership we'll see an organization which is more functional and less dystopic.

Otherwise we will continue to lose this struggle, as we're losing now.    

By  Gavin S., at 8/31/06, 12:17 PM

Speaking of "loss of will". Your view is so oversimplified. It is not just about will. If will could do it based on will alone all of these issues would have been solved a long time ago. It is much more complicated than that. It involves money, grassroots power, legislative power, strategy, timing, and whole lot of other things. States are not cookie cutter replicas of one another--they are each unique environments and just because something is successful in one state does not mean it would be in another. And, just because a state does not succeed the first time does not mean that they "lost."

While states like Oregon, Washington, California, Massachusetts, Vermont and others that are on the forefront of the LGBT civil rights movement can borrow from one another to some degree and provide models that are useful to one another in evaluating how to move forward, we also have to acknowledge that the process of achieving victory can't just be measured one way. Each state brings different things to the movement.

California has done a great job with legislation. Massachusetts with legal work. BRO with running winning campaigns and building a stable grassroots organization that is respected by and credible to mainstream Oregonians. Each state has work to do in its own way and has its own vocal critics--like yourself.    

By  Anonymous, at 8/31/06, 2:08 PM

jenn stewart writes >>BRO with running winning campaigns and building a stable grassroots organization that is respected by and credible to mainstream Oregonians.<<

BRO doesn't have a stable grassroots organization, and it's lost the respect of lots of us out here in the grassroots. If stating what we feel makes us vocal critics (whatever that means), so be it.

If BRO were grassroots there wouldn't be this kind of 'you are' and 'BRO is' conversation, it'd be "we are" and "we need" and ... well you get the point.    

By  Gavin S., at 8/31/06, 2:21 PM

Perfect exmaple of the grassroots organizing: Hillsboro City Council Unanimously Approves Non-Discrimination Ordinance.

As you said, you are no longer involved in BRO, so therefore you would have no idea of the grassroots organizing going on right now. I actually just canvassed recently doing voter education. BRO's strategy is very targeted targets districts all over the state. To that you cannot comment, as you said yourself, you are "no longer involved".

Please go back to your blog-"BRO Watch". I present facts, you present opinion and falsehoods. We are completely off topic from the post itself. Can we please stick to CA.    

» Post a Comment